If Democracy Doesn’t Work, Try Anarchy

Chuck Norris lands a knock out blow with the following piece. Just think! Anarchy as a respectable alternative to Democracy?

If Democracy Doesn’t Work, Try Anarchy
By Chuck Norris

Protestors of Proposition 8 in California (the marriage amendment) shoved aside a 69-year-old woman who was bearing a cross. They reportedly spit on her and stomped on her cross. They then aligned themselves in a human barricade, blocking the media from getting to or interviewing the woman.

Prop. 8 supporter Jose Nunez, 37, was assaulted brutally while distributing yard signs to other supporters after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto.

Calvary Chapel Chino Hills was spray painted by vandals after they learned that the church served as an official collection point for Prop. 8 petitions.

Letters containing white powder (obviously mimicking anthrax) were sent to the Salt Lake City headquarters of the Mormon church and to a temple in Los Angeles. (Thankfully, the FBI said the substance was nontoxic.)
The 25-year artistic director of the California Musical Theatre, who also happens to be a Mormon, was muscled to resign because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California.

A pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back marched into the middle of a church service and flung fliers and condoms to the congregants. They also hung a banner from the balcony that featured two lesbians in provocative positions at the pulpit.

And lastly, the tolerance-preaching activists also have taken their anger to the blogosphere, where posts have planted ideas ranging from burning churches to storming the citadels of government until our society is forced to overturn Prop. 8. You even can find donor blacklists online. The lists include everyone who financially backed Prop. 8 — even those who gave as little as $46 — with the obvious objective that these individuals will be bantered and boycotted for doing so.

What’s wrong with this picture? Lots.

First, there’s the obvious inability of the minority to accept the will of the majority. Californians have spoken twice, through the elections in 2000 and 2008. Nearly every county across the state (including Los Angeles County) voted to amend the state constitution in favor of traditional marriage.

Nevertheless, bitter activists simply cannot accept the outcome as being truly reflective of the general public. So they have placed the brainwashing blame upon the crusading and misleading zealotry of those religious villains: the Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and especially Mormons, who allegedly are robbing the rights of American citizens by merely executing their right to vote and standing upon their moral convictions and traditional views.

What’s surprising (or maybe not so) is that even though 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, protests against black churches are virtually nonexistent. And everyone knows exactly why: Such actions would be viewed as racist. Yet these opponents of Prop. 8 can protest vehemently and shout obscenities in front of Mormon temples without ever being accused of religious bigotry. There’s a clear double standard in our society. Where are the hate-crime cops when religious conservatives need them?

There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don’t see us protesting in the streets or crying “unfair.” Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support “our” president. Just because we don’t like the election outcome doesn’t give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn’t tip our direction, we don’t swing to anarchy. That would be like the Wild West, the resurrection of which seems to be happening in these postelection protests.

I agree with Prison Fellowship’s founder, Chuck Colson, who wrote: “This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live in a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs.”

Regardless of one’s opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat-out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques are used that restrict voting liberties and even prompt fear of safety, activists have crossed a line. There is a difference between respectfully advocating one’s civil rights and demanding public endorsement of what many still consider to be unnatural sexual behavior through cruel coercion and repression tactics. One thing is for sure: The days of peaceful marches, such as those headed up by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., seem to be long gone.

The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren’t intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.

On Nov. 4, the pro-gay community obviously was flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony. But that’s exactly what happened; the majority of Californians — red, yellow, black and white — voted to define the margins of marriage as being between one man and one woman. California is the 30th state in our union to amend its constitution in doing so, joining Florida and Arizona in this election.

13 Responses to “If Democracy Doesn’t Work, Try Anarchy”

Chuck Norris has a great article there. The obfuscations of the anti-Prop. 8 activists are extreme. You’re not allowed to disagree with them. But I will anyway: they are not being denied a civil right when they are denied the possibility of redefining marriage.

I am not sure how to state my opinion here without it coming across in a way that doesn’t seem outrageous. So I think I will attempt to say what I feel without mentioning the topic at all. There are extremists, extremists in anything are in my opinion ugly (and hopefully ugly to the vast majority of us.) I don’t care what side you are on for any particular ideology, extreme actions are wrong, thus why we label them extreme.

In that I appreciate the attention drawn to those that are being extreme, and those that are acting out in such a way. (No better than those that would kill someone for being gay, that would bomb an abortion clinic with people in it and so forth. Therefore those people should feel not only horrible, but also like hypocrites.) However, I feel as if while attention should be drawn to the problem, it needs to be balanced with the fact that the majority of protesters aren’t these nasty extremists.

The peaceful marches are there, and they have every right even a duty to do as they feel is right. That is the majority. If it would have been voted the other way I would respect the right of the other side of this issue to do the exact same thing. If it would have gone the other way I would see these same type of articles about the extremists on the other side, doing just as many hypocritical things.

So in the name of fairness, I just want to throw some balance into this. I respect the position, but not so much the light it gives on the people that are doing this the right way. It makes it appear as those that would do those horrible things are the majority, and thus makes it appear that those that support gay marriage are for the most part extremists, and that view is not only untrue, but misleading…

Well spoken Terra, at least as issues like this are concerned. Extremism has it’s place. Warfare and rescue are two places where it comes to mind as appropriate. I don’t agree at all with changing the definition of marriage by social/political fiat.
I also don’t have any problem at all with some new form family type being established. Just don’t call it marriage

One can be quite powerful without being over the top, and in most cases not being an extremist will get more results that are positive. As in having people actually listen to what you have to say, and possibly coming around to whatever your way of thinking on this or that issue is.

I can see Terra’s point, and it is well taken. We should be careful about condemning all. But I would also point out something curious that I read in the California Voter Guide for this past election (a voter guide published officially through the State of California). The argument against Prop. 8 said, “Regardless of how you feel about this issue, you should vote against Prop. 8.” I find that not only curious, but unfair. The reasoning was that a civil right is being denied, and how could you be in favor of that? Well, it’s not a civil right — the Bill of Rights outlines the proper sphere there.

Good points Tony. As I remember when I had to study the Constitution, and pass that God Awful test to get past the eighth grade the California Constitution actually went a bit farther than the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights did in protecting citizens from government. No where though, was there any reference to marriage. Unless my memory really has gone the way of the Passenger Pigeon. Could this be yet another example of Judicial Activism somewhere along the way? Sort of reminds me of a debate that I listened to once; having to do with ethics and the various conflicts involved in that field of Philosophy. Contrast Kantian verses Utilitarianism…

I have to respectfully half disagree with the idea of the constitution and where it stands on this issue. Those against it see it as an ethical problem, (against gay marriage, not prop 8). For an ethical problem a vote is the absolute right place to carry such a question. That is totally within the states power, and it ethical concerns should be looked at by the people.

However, we have to be fair those that are for gay marriage see it as an issue of equality. Even if we don’t agree with that prospect, we have to respect the opinion, that marriage in society today is a government act and not an ethical act. For those that feel it is this way, until the state law is reviewed by the Supreme Court to decide if it is a constitutional issue we cannot say for absolute certainty.

So agree to with it in principal or disagree with it in principal, it is still a fact that we cannot be sure if it is a state issue or a federal issue unless and/or until the Supreme Court steps in and gives clarity. Then which ever way they see the issue is what we as the United States of America have to abide by.

I see three obfuscations on the part of the same-sex advocates: (1)a civil right is being denied; (2)same-sex union is a marriage; (3)being treated differently is being denied your rights.
I agree with Patrick that this is judicial activism, the “Living Constitution” going too far. Civil rights are based on what the government cannot do to you. They are not based on some idea of what it must do for you. This is a new concept of government, the welfare state government, that must provide you with stuff. But it’s clearly beyond the scope of the government’s obligations to recognize these unions as marriage. No liberty is being deprived, this is not segregation in the Old South. Gays are not being excluded from the body politic.

It is my opinion that when it gets to the Supreme Court the court will have no choice but to make it a constitutional issue, and that it will say that the ban on gay marriage is against the constitution. (I had no intention on telling my stance on the issue, as I am here only to add to discussions and hopefully being out a little more thought on issues, not to change minds.) However, the answer I am reading right now offends my sensibilities. Not on opinion, but on opinion presented as fact.

My opinion is rooted in Loving v. Virginia, the opinion of the court held for purposes of marriage not allowing colored people and white people to marry was against the constitution. The reasons for this was it is treating others differently is a violation of rights, and the right to marry is a right. While it was dealing with black rights and not gay rights, I see no way that the Supreme Court can come to any other decision. However, I would note that at this time our Supreme Court most likely wouldn’t hear the case, because they would have to make that decision.

Well? The California Supreme Court will have it’s say, and most likely so will the U.S. Supreme Court.

Without stating this outright, what both of you are talking about is that subtle difference between civil rights, and civil liberties.

Then we get into that really nasty issue of Democracy. I call it mob rule. Hence, the United States is not a democracy as such. We are a Constitutional Republic. We are a nation of laws, not of men (women).

We have a Bill of Rights. That is what protects individuals from government oppression. (The mob called democracy.) Therein lies the problem. This issue goes well beyond simply allowing gays to marry. It will, at some point in time also branch into things like plural marriage.

After all, there are many cultures in the world that practice that. Why on earth a person would want more than one wife (or husband) is beyond me though. Isn’t one enough? :D No, I will not go after the red herring of marrying your pet etc.

Will the Bill of Rights, as it is now written, protect gays in a manner that allows them to marry? I don’t believe that it does. Can that be changed somehow? Certainly, and I think that would be the path with the greatest chance of success.

Don’t get to smart there Patrick (can I call you Patrick?) you go around telling people we don’t live in a democracy and you might get hurt :P I agree with your assessment completely, and would note that the founders planned on it being that way. Although, they would be shocked that the federal government is protecting the people, as clearly they thought it would be the states. I haven’t decided if they would be surprised about how the Supreme Court has gone or not (I don’t mean liberal or conservative, but because they stepped up in the first place in the way that they did.)

As for the ending question… I guess I would suggest looking into both Loving v. Virginia (fundamental right to marriage – even if not expressly written) & Lawrence v Texas… It seems to me that unless the Supreme Court wanted to change what was said (which is possible, but generally doesn’t happen a lot), it would have to say that it protects gays.

I prefer the first as it is equal protection, but the second is note worthy too…

Yes, you can call me Patrick. I think that the California Supreme Court will be forced to deal with this, as it is on their doorstep. As for the U.S. Supreme Court? I think they will endeavor to avoid the issue. Much as they have done for so many years about so many issues that confront us in our daily lives.

Once again I have to agree with your assessment (I don’t generally like that by the way – your values are so different from my own the commonality scares me – joking)

I honestly don’t know anything about the California Supreme Court, but with the U.S. Supreme Court I think (note: think – not fact) you are right they will avoid the issue. I believe the cases that I brought up (and a bunch more) will make them make a choice that the people of the US aren’t willing to accept yet, and therefore they will avoid the issue for now…